At 09:50 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:31:29PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 06:51 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > >As for :idempotent, I think sort() needs to assume the comparison sub
> > >is idempotent, rather than requiring such an attribute explicitly.
> > Assuming idempotency's fine, though I don't know that I'd go so far as to
> > require it. I certainly wouldn't complain, though.
>I'd think /perl/ should complain if your comparison function isn't
>idempotent (if warnings on, of course). If nothing else, it's probably an
>indicator that you should be using that schwartz thang.
If you figure out how, tell me. I'd like to make arrangements to be there
for your Nobel acceptance speech. :) (This is, alas, a variant on the
halting problem, unless you're proposing perl do the memoizing *and* still
call the functions, and complain if one doesn't match the other)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
